Author
Topic: The Impossibility Argument (Read 36371 times)

When and how design was done is irrelevant to the fact design must have taken place for IC systems. If Darwin evol does not account for IC systems then you either have to conclude it happened by chance or by intelligent design. What you conclude at that point is up to you but IC systems rule out Darwin evol. I don't like that anymore than you do because it means we have lost time in science by going down the wrong road but better late than never.

When and how design was done is irrelevant to the fact design must have taken place for IC systems.

Unless they're not IC systems. If design was impossible, then the idea of IC systems must be rethought. It won't be, because it's a religious idea held on faith. A scientist would rethink it in light of its physical implausibility.

If there is no window of time and opportunity in which design could have taken place, then design did not take place. That is a real-world observation that must be incorporated into any scientific modeling of reality.

When and how design was done is irrelevant to the fact design must have taken place for IC systems.

Unless they're not IC systems. If design was impossible, then the idea of IC systems must be rethought. It won't be, because it's a religious idea held on faith. A scientist would rethink it in light of its physical implausibility.

If there is no window of time and opportunity in which design could have taken place, then design did not take place. That is a real-world observation that must be incorporated into any scientific modeling of reality.

Design would be getting into some issues that we cannot explain, ie supernatural. But we cannot say that because we do not know how the design was designed, there is no designer, given we know IC systems cannot be created via the Darwin mechanism.

A scientist isn't a scientist if he starts with the conclusion there is no God because science does not start with conclusions.

There is no real world observation of how the first lifeform arose from non-life. There is no real time observation of evolution from one species to another. THer eis no real time observation that numerous unselected precursors could lead to a IC system (given there are no functional selected percursors to an IC System)

Yet you hold intelligent design to a standard that you don't hold other scientific theories to.

Still waiting for an answer to this, DrTesla. Gonna start smiting you pretty soon.

Last chance before the smiting starts.

Still waiting. Smiting has started. Note that I am the one who has used the smite function the most of the entire forum, so you know I don't have a problem smiting you every hour, if it comes to that.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

I think some people believe in a "God" out of fear but the opposite is also true, some people are scared of the idea of God and thus they will oppose any observation of nature that cannot be explained by Darwin. It is basically God-phobia that prejudices against the obvious conclusion that that IC cannot be explained by Darwin. We know there must be thousands of IC systems in a body if a simple mechanism like a mouse trap is IC. That is why you see Miller and others try to argue the mousetrap isn't IC. LOL

You haven't yet demonstrated the ability to think. And you're projecting. And dodging. All points have been repeatedly discredited.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

I think some people believe in a "God" out of fear but the opposite is also true, some people are scared of the idea of God and thus they will oppose any observation of nature that cannot be explained by Darwin. It is basically God-phobia that prejudices against the obvious conclusion that that IC cannot be explained by Darwin. We know there must be thousands of IC systems in a body if a simple mechanism like a mouse trap is IC. That is why you see Miller and others try to argue the mousetrap isn't IC. LOL

You haven't yet demonstrated the ability to think. And you're projecting. And dodging. All points have been repeatedly discredited.

Some wonder if darwins do not purposely conflate intelligent design with creationism because that is the only way they can discredit it. They cannot explain how Darwin evolution of gradual change resulted in a complex system that has no functional precursor meaning there was no function for nature to select from the get go.

In other words, are darwins trying to make intelligent design a matter of religion simply because they cannot explain the science?

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

When and how design was done is irrelevant to the fact design must have taken place for IC systems.

First you have to show that biological systems can be irreducibly complex. Then you have to show that they are. Until then, talking about design being necessary is pointless.

Quote from: DrTesla

If Darwin evol does not account for IC systems

But so far, no biological system has been shown to be irreducibly complex in the first place - indeed, Behe's attempts to show irreducible complexity in anatomy have been so thoroughly rebutted that he's switched to talking about molecules instead. So talking about evolution not accounting for irreducibly complex systems is pointless.

Quote from: DrTesla

then you either have to conclude it happened by chance or by intelligent design.

Fortunately for evolution, nobody's actually shown that biological systems are irreducibly complex, so this is moot.

Quote from: DrTesla

What you conclude at that point is up to you but IC systems rule out Darwin evol.

Which is why we don't talk about the natural evolution of mousetraps, or of cars. But Behe has failed repeatedly to show that biological systems are irreducibly complex, and has apparently given up trying to show that an anatomical system can be irreducibly complex at all.

Quote from: DrTesla

I don't like that anymore than you do because it means we have lost time in science by going down the wrong road but better late than never.

Well, you can stop worrying about it. Put your mind at ease - nobody's yet shown that biological systems are irreducibly complex, and therefore evolutionary theory is still perfectly sound.

lol all of Behe's examples he talks about it at a molecular level. He essentially talking about how these proteins have to be there and able to interact with other to for the function to happen, like the flagellum able to induce motion, or the blood clot cascade to work.

He is a biochemist.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

I think some people believe in a "God" out of fear but the opposite is also true, some people are scared of the idea of God and thus they will oppose any observation of nature that cannot be explained by Darwin. It is basically God-phobia that prejudices against the obvious conclusion that that IC cannot be explained by Darwin. We know there must be thousands of IC systems in a body if a simple mechanism like a mouse trap is IC. That is why you see Miller and others try to argue the mousetrap isn't IC. LOL

You haven't yet demonstrated the ability to think. And you're projecting. And dodging. All points have been repeatedly discredited.

Some wonder if darwins do not purposely conflate intelligent design with creationism because that is the only way they can discredit it. They cannot explain how Darwin evolution of gradual change resulted in a complex system that has no functional precursor meaning there was no function for nature to select from the get go.

In other words, are darwins trying to make intelligent design a matter of religion simply because they cannot explain the science?

I'm not addressing new posts when you have so many old ones waiting for your replies. Catch up dude.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Some wonder if darwins do not purposely conflate intelligent design with creationism because that is the only way they can discredit it.

You need to read about the history and origin of ID. ID is without a doubt Creationism.

lol, nope, creationism is focused on a literal interpretation of the book of genesis. it is a reference to religion and the bible, ID is not. They disagree on other things to, if you are interested in look at discovery website. They have a long list of differences.

Clearly, the concept of IC isn't based on religion. It is simply an observation of a state in nature.

Behe makes the case most Christian scientists agree with Darwin evolution so by your own logic it is Creationism.

lol all of Behe's examples he talks about it at a molecular level. He essentially talking about how these proteins have to be there and able to interact with other to for the function to happen, like the flagellum able to induce motion, or the blood clot cascade to work.

He is a biochemist.

Except there's no difference between an organism's anatomy and its molecular structure. They are one and the same - unless you care to argue that anatomical structures are not composed of molecules? So if he cannot show that an anatomical structure is irreducibly complex, and other people can show that it is not, then him trying to talk about just the molecular structure is a retreat, and an implicit concession that anatomical structures are not irreducibly complex.

lol all of Behe's examples he talks about it at a molecular level. He essentially talking about how these proteins have to be there and able to interact with other to for the function to happen, like the flagellum able to induce motion, or the blood clot cascade to work.

He is a biochemist.

Except there's no difference between an organism's anatomy and its molecular structure. They are one and the same - unless you care to argue that anatomical structures are not composed of molecules? So if he cannot show that an anatomical structure is irreducibly complex, and other people can show that it is not, then him trying to talk about just the molecular structure is a retreat, and an implicit concession that anatomical structures are not irreducibly complex.

I think he means that a biochemical system can be across various structures of an organ, not self contained. A system in the context in one that serves a function like providing vision. Again the anatomy is irrelevant but if the system were to lose just 1 part, then the function like vision would be gone. Thus there is no way it would have been of an advantage for the percursors to be selected because they would have no function.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

If Darwin evol does not account for IC systems then you either have to conclude it happened by chance or by intelligent design.

I don't see biochemistry as "chance." There are indeed stochastic processes in genetics, but they exist in a grey zone of probability rather than being all-or-nothing propositions. Alleles are capable of switching on or off (which, AFAIK, will influence whether or not they are passed down to the next generation) in response to the chemical composition of their environment.

The foundation of biochemistry, inorganic chemistry, is also far from random. Life is comprised of some of the most common elements, combining fairly predictably according to their physical structures. If you throw hydrogen and oxygen together you get water; hydrogen and carbon make methane; hydrogen and nitrogen make ammonia. The only randomness I see is how much of each you get.

Don't mind Me, but it was always My understanding that the amounts of each depend on how simple its atoms are. For example, hydrogen is the most common element in the known universe because it's so simple (1x proton + 1x electron). Helium is the second most common for the same reason.EDIT: This is a rough approximation, of course. Stability of the atom also plays a part in how common it will be.

« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 12:53:49 PM by One Above All »

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

I think he means that a biochemical system can be across various structures of an organ, not self contained.

Agreed, but this doesn't mean it doesn't also have an anatomical structure.

Quote from: DrTesla

A system in the context in one that serves a function like providing vision. Again the anatomy is irrelevant but if the system were to lose just 1 part, then the function like vision would be gone. Thus there is no way it would have been of an advantage for the percursors to be selected because they would have no function.

First off, no, the anatomy is not irrelevant. Secondly, biology doesn't operate on the principles of engineering, where a system requires certain parts in order to function, so no, you can't just say that if it loses one part, it stops functioning.

Good luck with that. I've posted over half a dozen times my yes/no question.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

lol, nope, creationism is focused on a literal interpretation of the book of genesis. it is a reference to religion and the bible, ID is not. They disagree on other things to, if you are interested in look at discovery website. They have a long list of differences.

Clearly, the concept of IC isn't based on religion. It is simply an observation of a state in nature.

This is simply a deception. You are incorrect. There is nothing "clear" about it. ID/IC is pseudo-science. After living in pre-1800 state of knowledge, fundamental, denialist Christians (no one else) created ID/IC for the sole purpose of pushing their agenda of disseminating untruths. Untruths that are strangely in line with The Bible rather than any other "holy Book" or religion.

Quote

Behe makes the case most Christian scientists agree with Darwin[1] evolution so by your own logic it is Creationism.

I have told you before, the adjective from Darwin is "Darwinian" please make the effort to use English.

Your statement is an outright falsehood in its conclusion. Evolution is nothing to do with invisible friends. If there never had been a Bible, there would still have been evolution. There are no creator gods. There is evolution.

I suggest that you need an education and not one at the hands of people who really, "make it up as they go along."

How on earth (or elsewhere) does it benefit you to believe the ID/IC lie?

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

genetics, environment, etc are all part of Darwin's theory that life evolves via natural selection and random mutations. You are trying to separate them out, maybe to confuse things. Darwin evolution is accounting for these things, thus I am only talking about how Darwin evolution should work. It is not unfounded to assert that a function needs to be selected and each intermediate precursor should have a function derivative of the final system function, a system we shall call IC.

lol, there is so much rhetoric being thrown out , I am not even sure what we are talking about at this point.

It's been quite clear since the beginning that you are clueless about what we are talking about.

Quote

I feel like the lurkers on this forum, the Silent Majority, people who read but do not comment, feel that I am in the right on this issue of IC and how it poses a problem for Darwins. It is the Silent Majority, the very best amongst us, who I seek to convince and I appreciate their support.

This is sheer presumptuous nonsense. It's also incredibly disrespectful of the Silent Majority who, one would hope, can spot your ignorance and your logically fallacious nonsense a mile off.

I think some people believe in a "God" out of fear but the opposite is also true, some people are scared of the idea of God and thus they will oppose any observation of nature that cannot be explained by Darwin. It is basically God-phobia that prejudices against the obvious conclusion that that IC cannot be explained by Darwin. We know there must be thousands of IC systems in a body if a simple mechanism like a mouse trap is IC. That is why you see Miller and others try to argue the mousetrap isn't IC. LOL

Now you are not even trying to make an argument; you're simply throwing out well-poisoning arguments in an attempt to get a rise out of people.

This degree of pig-ignorance is astounding. Most evolutionists are Christians, and most Christians belong to denominations that declare evolution to be compatible with Christianity. Evolutionary Theory does not disprove God, as I tried to tell you earlier (for some values of "God", of course).

As for the rest, you claim that "we know there must be thousands of IC systems in a body" - you are mistaken. You know no such thing.

lol all of Behe's examples he talks about it at a molecular level. He essentially talking about how these proteins have to be there and able to interact with other to for the function to happen, like the flagellum able to induce motion, or the blood clot cascade to work.

Most Darwins accept there is IC in nature and they try to explain there are alternative Darwin pathways which means they understand Behe's point on traditional direct Darwin evolution not being able to lead to IC in nature.

Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) was one of the early Church's greatest thinkers. Yet he too suffered from the Iron Age version of forum posters who knew nothing about the things they said. The essence of his message is that Christians who say things that, even to the moderately educated, are obviously untrue destroy the basis of Christianity by making it appear foolish.

In his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) Augustine provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.